ISIS Press Release - 8 March 2005
Iraqi Government Urged to Revoke "Cynical and Wicked" Patent Law
Dr. Brian John
"Cynical and wicked" imposition on occupied Iraq
Aid agencies and NGOs across the globe have been reacting with horror
to the news that new legislation in Iraq was carefully put in place
last year by the United States that will effectively bring the whole of
the country’s agricultural sector under the control of trans-national
corporations. This spells disaster for the Iraqi government and the
country’s farmers, paving the way for companies like Monsanto and
Syngenta to control the entire food chain from planted seed to packaged
food products [1].
The new Iraqi Government is now being urged to revoke Order 81, the
offending piece of legislation signed and brought into force by Paul
Bremer, the Administrator of the Coalition Provisional Authority, on
26th April 2004.
NGOs have described Order 81 as "cynical and wicked", as the section
relating to the registration and protection of plant varieties was
slipped in almost as an appendage to an Order dealing with patents,
industrial design, disclosure of information and integrated circuits
[2].
The manner in which this Order was imposed on the people of Iraq is an
outrage in itself. There was virtually no Iraqi input into the wording
of the Order, as the country and its people were on their knees
following the Iraq War [3].
The Preamble to the Order justifies its provisions as "necessary to
improve the economic condition of the people of Iraq", desirable for
"sustainable economic growth", and enabling Iraq to become "a full
member of the international trading system known as the WTO". But when
one looks at paragraphs 51 to 79 of the Order, it is clear that they
have been designed simply to facilitate the takeover of Iraqi
agriculture by western biotechnology corporations.
It is not surprising that Order 81 was written as "enabling
legislation" for American corporate interests. The US Agriculture
Department, which aided Bremer in writing the Order, was headed by
ex-management of the huge US seed and biotech companies, such as
Monsanto and Cargill [4]. Ann Veneman, who recently resigned as US
Secretary of Agriculture, had a long career working for large US
agribusinesses before going to work for the government. So did Dan
Amstutz who headed Iraq’s agricultural reconstruction.
The Order fits neatly into the US vision of future Iraqi agriculture –
an industrial agricultural system dependent on a small number of cash
crops, with large corporations selling both chemical inputs and seeds.
It also arises naturally from the USAID programme in Iraq, which
unashamedly confirms the thesis that foreign aid programmes are
primarily "commercial opportunity" programmes designed for the benefit
of American companies [5].
Iraq’s food crisis exploited
Iraq was once self-sufficient in agriculture and the world’s number one
exporter of dates. It is the acknowledged centre of origin of many
cereal varieties that have been exported and adapted worldwide.
Twenty seven percent of Iraq’s total land area is suitable for
cultivation, over half of which is rain-fed while the balance is
irrigable. Wheat, barley, and chickpeas are the primary staple crops,
with wheat being traditionally the most important crop. Before the
First Iraq War, average annual harvests were 1.4 million tonnes for
cereals, 400 000 tonnes for roots and tubers, and 38 000 tonnes for
pulses. Over the past 20 years, Iraq’s agricultural sector has
collapsed, and only half of the irrigable area is now properly utilised
[6]. It is not known how many of the country’s 600 000 farmers are
still able to produce food. Grain production during 2003 was less than
(space) one-half the grain production in 1990; andagricultural
production has been declining by an average of 2.6 % per year since.
Today more than 50 percent of the population is affected by food
insecurity. The Oil-For-Food Programme, while essential to the
humanitarian situation in Iraq, was a severe disincentive to food
production. Over half of Iraq’s total food requirement is imported, and
a large portion of the population is dependent upon externally-financed
food rations for survival. The World Food Programme (WFP) plays a key
role in coordinating the flow of food aid; and recently, three million
tonnes of wheat have been imported yearly, mostly from Australia, to be
distributed to Iraqis as part of their food rations. Farm machinery and
equipment are in short supply amid water shortages, low technology
uptake, and a lack of profit incentive. The cost of food rations
provided to Iraqis is estimated at over $2 billion per year.
The Ministry of Agriculture (MOA) officials and the United States
Agency for International Development (USAID) Agriculture Reconstruction
and Development Program for Iraq (ARDI) are continuing to implement a
national wheat production campaign, so as to reduce the dependency on
aid. Under the campaign, 1 500 tonnes of wheat seed has arrived in
Mosul. ARDI procured the seed to assist the MOA to distribute high
quality, certified seed to as many farmers as possible.
Over 400 tonnes of this seed has already been distributed and
incorporated into high-profile "reconstruction and re-education"
programmes, and another 4 000 tonnes are on their way. We have been
unable to discover which varieties are involved, who the seed owners
are, and the terms under which the seed stocks are being "donated".
Foreign aid – a nice little earner
Order 81, like the other 99 orders brought into law at high speed by
Paul Bremer on behalf of the Coalitional Provisional Authority, was
conceived by the US administration as part of the plan to install a
"friendly and compliant", and essentially colonial regime in Iraq. The
Order explicitly states that its provisions are consistent with Iraq’s
"transition from a non-transparent centrally planned economy to a free
market economy characterised by sustainable economic growth through the
establishment of a dynamic private sector, and the need to enact
institutional and legal reforms to give it effect." Pushing for these
"transitional reforms" in Iraq has been the USAID, which has been
implementing ARDI since October 2003. For this purpose, a one-year US$5
million contract was granted to the US consulting firm Development
Alternatives, Inc, followed by a further $96 million contract.
There has been great speculation in sections of the American press
about the fate of Iraqi oil sales revenues since the invasion. Only a
part of it seems to be accounted for, and auditing procedures appear to
have been corrupt. Some $9 billion worth of oil revenues seem to have
vanished, and may simply have been recycled by the US Administration as
multi-million dollar "aid" from the people of United States to the
people of Iraq [7].
ARDI claims it is rebuilding Iraq’s farming sector, but its real
intention is to develop agribusiness opportunities for western
corporations. According to GRAIN and other NGOs, "reconstruction" is
not necessarily about rebuilding domestic economies and capacities, but
about helping corporations approved by the occupying forces to
capitalise on market opportunities in Iraq. The legal framework laid
down by Bremer ensures that although US troops may leave Iraq in the
conceivable (forseeable) future, the US domination of Iraq’s economy
will be sustained in law by one hundred very convenient Orders.
Order 81
The critical part of Order 81 deals with plant variety protection
(PVP). Superficially, its purpose is to protect the rights of those who
develop new and improved plant varieties [2], but it means that in
future Iraqi farmers will be forced to plant "protected" crop varieties
defined as new, distinct, uniform and stable. The new law makes a very
basic change to Iraqi "intellectual property" law, for the first time
recognizing the "ownership" of biologic material and paving the way for
the patenting of life forms. It also opens the way for genetically
modified crops to be introduced into the country. Crucially, there are
no special provisions for GM crops - they are treated as no more novel
(and no more controversial) than new varieties developed through
conventional breeding programmes.
Where ownership of a crop is claimed, seed saving will be banned, and
royalties will have to be paid by the farmer to the registered seed
"owner". Farmers will be required to sign contracts relating to seed
supply and, probably, to the marketing of the harvest. Where GM crops
are involved (and possibly in other cases as well) they will also be
required to sign contracts for the purchase of herbicides, insecticides
and fertilisers.
Strictly, the new law does not prohibit saving seed from the harvesting
of traditional or long-established varieties that are deemed to be
"matters of common knowledge" [2, 4]. But with Iraqi agriculture in a
state of crisis, there are (gap) critical seed shortages; and as
mentioned earlier, the "reconstruction" of the food supply system
involves (includes) a substantial involvement on the part of USAID and
other food donor organizations giving "high quality seed" to farmers
along with technical advice. It is inevitable that that (most of this)
seed comes from US registered varieties, and that within a year or two,
philanthropy will be replaced by the collection of seed royalties. In
addition, Order 81 allows plant breeders to claim ownership of old
varieties (and to call them "new" varieties) if they are the first to
describe or characterize them. They can then also claim ownership of
related crops that are "not clearly distinguishable from the protected
varieties". The control of all protected varieties will last 20 years
for field crops and 25 years for trees and vines. Farmers who save seed
or otherwise break their agreements, and farmers unlucky enough to find
the adventitious presence of "registered varieties" in their fields,
can be prosecuted; or else their harvests, tools and buildings will
(may) be destroyed. Conversely, farmers will have no right to claim
compensation from the seed owners who, for example, allow their GM
crops to pollute organic crops and destroy livelihoods in the process.
Heads I win, tails you lose
In the end, the Iraqi farmer will have two choices. He can go it alone,
and try to grow crops from seeds of "traditional" crops that have
become rare during decades of war and sanctions; or he can sign up to
the food aid / agricultural programme and then buy seeds from companies
like Monsanto, Dow, Syngenta and Bayer. If he chooses the first option
he may be left out in the cold during the reconstruction programme [1,
4]. If he chooses the second option, after a period of free handouts
and advice, he may be trapped into a high-cost cash crop economy from
which he will find it impossible to escape. He will also be forced to
use seeds that appear to be high yielding but which may in reality turn
out to be ill adapted to his local environment; so crop failures and
even famine may follow.
It was some 10 000 years ago that the people of the fertile-crescent,
now Iraq, began saving seeds from wild grains and planting them. That
marked the beginnings of agriculture and western civilization. The
saving and sharing of seeds in Iraq has always been a largely informal
matter. Local varieties of grain and legumes have been adapted to local
(space) conditions over the millennia, and are resistant to extreme
heat, drought and salinity. They are not only a national treasure for
Iraq but could well provide key genetic resources for agriculture in
other parts of the world as global warming takes effect.
In 2002, FAO estimated that 97 percent of Iraqi farmers still saved
seed from their own stocks for replanting, or purchased from local
markets. Order 81 will put an end to all that, and will brutally
disregard the contributions Iraqi farmers have made over hundreds of
generations to the development of important crops like wheat, barley,
dates and pulses. The new law, in allowing old varieties to be
genetically manipulated or otherwise modified and then "registered",
amount to legalising the theft of inherited intellectual property owned
by traditional farmers, the loss of farmers’ freedoms, and the
destruction of their food sovereignty.
Germplasm held in trust?
In recognition of the unique "seed heritage" of Iraq, traditional
varieties have been saved as from the 1970s in the country’s national
gene bank in Abu Ghraib outside Baghdad. There is concern that most of
these may have been lost during the latter years of Saddam Hussein and
in the recent conflict. However, the Syria-based Consultative Group on
International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) centre and the affiliated
International Centre for Agricultural Research in Dry Areas (ICARDA)
still hold accessions of several Iraqi varieties in the form of
germplasm. These collections comprise the agricultural heritage of Iraq
and they should now be repatriated. But CGIAR is reluctant to give
assurances on this [8]. Ominously, germplasm held by international
agricultural research centres belonging to the CGIAR has been "leaked
out" for research and development to Northern scientists [1]. Such
"biopiracy" is fuelled by an IPR regime that ignores the prior art of
the farmer and grants sole rights to a breeder or researcher who claims
to have created something new from varieties made by generations of
indigenous farmers.
Wider implications
The US has now effectively declared a new war against the Iraqi farmer.
Order 81 also goes against the United Nations Millennium Forum
Declaration [9] which aspires to "move towards economic reforms aimed
at equity, in particular to construct macroeconomic policies that
combine growth with the goal of human development and social justice;
to prevent the impoverishment of groups that have emerged from poverty
but are still vulnerable to social risks and exclusion; to improve
legislation on labour standards, including the provision of a minimum
legal wage and an effective social system; and to restore people’s
control over primary productive resources as a key strategy for poverty
eradication." The signatories to the Declaration also seek "to promote
the use of indigenous crops and traditional production skills to
produce goods and services; to exempt developing countries from
implementing the WTO Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights
Agreement and to take these rights out of any new rounds of
negotiations, ensuring that no such new issues are introduced; and to
examine and regulate transnational corporations and the increasingly
negative influence of their trade on the environment. The attempt by
companies to patent life is ethically unacceptable."
Order 81 is also in clear contravention of the Convention on Biological
Diversity (CBD) in that it will increase chemical use, reduce the
number of planted crop varieties, accelerate the trend towards
monoculture, and decrease biodiversity [10]. Biosecurity will also be
negatively affected, and the negative social effects will include
population displacement, rural decline and an extension of (poverty
and) urban slum dwelling. As to the Biosafety (Cartagena) Protocol
dealing with GMOs and their transboundary movement, the Order is
apparently designed to flout its aims and objectives, as there is no
mention of any regulation of GM crop shipments, plantings, harvesting
or export. It is no coincidence that neither the US nor Iraq has signed
the CBD and the Cartagena Protocol.
The Food Aid Convention (cf Articles iii, viii and xiii) states that GM
food aid should only be offered and accepted after recipient countries
have discarded "conventional" alternatives and non-GM food aid as
non-options [11]. The United States is a signatory to this Convention,
but it has been widely accused of violating it whenever it suits its
own interests to do so.
The Rio Declaration (1992) includes many progressive principles,
including the polluter-pays-principle (the polluter bears the costs of
pollution) or the precautionary principle (carry out environmental
assessments to identify adverse impacts and eliminate any potential
harms from a project before it is started). It advocates that today’s
development shall not undermine the resource base of future generations
and that developed countries bear a special responsibility due to the
pressure their societies place on the global environment and the
technologies and financial resources they command [12]. These
principles are all flouted in Order 81.
The 2001 International Treaty on Plant Genetic resources for Food and
Agriculture (supported by the FAO and the Convention on Biological
Diversity) acknowledges that plant genetic resources for food and
agriculture are the raw material indispensable for crop genetic
improvement, whether by means of farmers’ selection, classical plant
breeding or modern biotechnologies, and are essential in adapting to
unpredictable environmental changes and future human needs; that the
past, present and future contributions of farmers in all regions of the
world, particularly those in centres of origin and diversity, in
conserving, improving and making available these resources, is the
basis of Farmers’ Rights; and that the rights recognized in this (the)
Treaty to save, use, exchange and sell farm-saved seed and other
propagating material, and to participate in decision-making regarding,
and in the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising from, the
use of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture, are
fundamental to the realization of Farmers’ Rights, as well as the
promotion of Farmers’ Rights at national and international levels.
Order 81 is in clear violation of these principles.
Order 81 was supposedly drafted by the Coalition, and it supposedly
represented the consensus view of the Coalition partners, including the
UK and various other members of the EU. The Order extends the patenting
of life forms into the area of crops and agriculture, in spite of a
massive ethical debate about this within Europe. It also treats GM
varieties as if they are no different from new "conventional"
varieties, which is in clear contravention of EU policy [13]. Those who
drafted Order 81 were clearly happy to see the farmers of that blighted
country blighted further by a "green light" for GM contamination of the
food supply and by commercial enslavement.
This is an edited version of an article posted by GM Free Cymru, 4
March 2005.
The Institute of Science in Society, PO Box 32097, London NW1 OXR
telephone: [44 20 8452 2729] [44 20 7272 5636]
General Enquiries sam@i-sis.org.uk - Website/Mailing List
press-release@i-sis.org.uk - ISIS Director m.w.ho@i-sis.org.uk
MATERIAL ON THIS SITE MAY BE REPRODUCED IN ANY FORM WITHOUT PERMISSION,
ON CONDITION THAT IT IS ACCREDITED ACCORDINGLY AND CONTAINS A LINK TO
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/